Last night, my torts class was briefly interrupted by the sounds of protests on campus over the appearance of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, on campus. The large protest itself was not a problem. As the vice president of the Disabled Students Collective (DSC) stated publicly, the students were “using our own free speech to protest Kennedy’s presence on campus.” The problem was the petition circulated by the DSC, signed by hundreds at GWU, calling for Kennedy to be prevented from exercising his own free speech. Indeed, it calls for Kennedy to be barred from campus for spreading “misinformation.” It seems that, once again, the tolerance for free speech only goes so far.
The event, co-sponsored by the local College Republican and Turning Point USA chapter, resulted in a packed and enthusiastic crowd in Lisner Auditorium. Hundreds of students waited hours to get into the event. Kennedy later thanked the student groups for arranging the event.
The appearance of Kennedy on campus only strengthens the depth and breadth of discussions on our campus. Notably, he was not brought here by the university, but by student groups who wanted to hear his views on subjects ranging from his efforts to remove chemicals from our food to his past criticism of certain vaccines.
It is also valuable for students to exercise their rights in speaking against those views. For a night, GWU was a vibrant free speech forum with all sides represented on our campus, even if the university itself was not the instigator.
Yet, the petition drive is focused on the same demand for censorship and enforced orthodoxy that now characterizes so much of higher education. It is simply intolerable for many to have such opposing views expressed. The DSC and other groups want to prevent other students from hearing from Kennedy despite being one of the most important figures in health policy today.
The petition states, “We implore GW to bar RFK Jr. from speaking on our campus. Allowing him to do so would tarnish this university’s reputation, its commitment to science, and the promotion of health in this country and globally.”
So, they demand the right to protest against these views, but also demand that Kennedy and others be denied the right to express them.
The use of the ill-defined “misinformation” charge was telling. Rather than see these events as an opportunity to discuss and debate such issues, the protesters simply declare Kennedy to be the spreader of misinformation and call for him to be banned.
It is the same clarion call heard during the pandemic to silence dissenting voices.
Over the years, dissenting faculty members have been forced out of scientific and academic organizations for challenging preferred conclusions on subjects ranging from transgender transitions to COVID-19 protections to climate change. Some were barred from speaking at universities or blacklisted for their opposing views.
Many of the exiled experts were ultimately proven correct in challenging the efficacy of surgical masks or the need to shut down our schools and businesses. Scientists moved like a herd of lemmings on the origin of the virus, crushing those who suggested that the most likely explanation is a lab leak (a position that federal agencies would later embrace).
Scientists worked with the government in suppressing dissenting views. For example, The Wall Street Journal released a report on how the Biden administration suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab leak theory, as dissenting scientists were blacklisted and targeted.
When experts within the Biden Administration found that the lab theory was the most likely explanation for COVID-19, they were told not to share their data publicly and were warned about being “off the reservation.”
Universities and associations joined the crackdown citing disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. (The Biden Administration defined malinformation as the use of facts in misleading ways).
Scientists questioning the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and the six-foot rule were suppressed. So were those arguing that we should, as in Europe, keep schools open. These experts were also later vindicated, but few were rehired or reestablished in universities or associations.
This intolerance for opposing views has continued as part of the culture of orthodoxy in higher education, as evidenced just yesterday with the petition.
It is to the credit of GWU that the school did not attempt to stop the event and ensured safety for all involved, from the speakers to the protesters.
What is chilling is the comfort that so many on this campus have with the open hypocrisy of demanding free speech in order to call for the denial of the same right to others.
Is discipline the essential problem?
1. GW operates the school.
2. Consumers buy the school of their choice.
3. Students learn.
Official truth is a warm blanket. By contrast, our personal search for truth is both difficult and scary. “Difficult” because it requires the constant gathering of information and endless self-debate. “Scary” because it may lead you to places you may wish to avoid. Is it any wonder that “official” truth is more popular than self-discovered truth?
Now doesn’t that just epitomize the “search for truth” a once keystone for institutions of learning. Do we truly comprehend the dangers we face with unfettered progressive ideologies? These ideologies are so intertwined with corporate profit goals that it is difficult to see what is true and what is best for profit margins in many cases. Do we want healthy people or healthy bottom lines and who is manipulating the data and who is abetting them to do so.
I am sure “disabled” in this connection includes mental disability so that would explain a lot.
I am curious as to what happens to these students as they grow older and have to face the realities of life. Will they continue their ideological actions at the work place until they find they have no job? Will they start to change to a more realistic approach to free speech when their wokeness and political correctness come crashing to the ground? I started out as a democrat in the late 60’s. As I got a job and had a family, house and kids my approach changed. Jimmy Carter and the cost of gas while I was commuting 110 miles a day had a big effect. When I moved to a small town in Tahoe (200 people year round) the basics were the priority of life. Friends helped friends and respected them for who they were not how much money, what school or political party they belonged to. That in my opinion is the problem, they have no exposure outside of their little fiefdoms and the radicalized schools.
Longgreyhair, as someone who was also a Democrat in the late 60s and now pines for any hair including grey I have to agree with you.
As for what will happen to these idiots when they get into the workplace I will point out what happened to the staff after Vogue shut down Teen Vogue. After the shut down staffers of the parent company decided to protest at an executives office…and they got fired!!! That is what will happen to them.
Another example is seeing baristas, yup, baristas, going on strike at Starbucks in the middle of their big “Red Cup” promotional period. Watch as the company crushes these highly degreed (in useless social “sciences”), highly indebted morons.
“I am curious as to what happens to these students . . .”
They move to Portland or become the mayor of a Blue city.
“ The event, co-sponsored by the local College Republican and Turning Point USA chapter…” I suspect that the sponsors are what this was mostly about.
…brought to you by Pfizer.
Turning Point is backed by billionaires. I suspect the invisible hand of the oligarchs is behind College Republicans as well.
“In a Republic, light will prevail over darkness, truth over error.” (James Madison)
..as a GWU Alum, proud to say BRAVO, GWU for supporting the event.. based on hearing RFK JR speak at an event a couple months ago I can say that this man has his finger on the pulse to the point of being a visionary in our society…. and as we have seen historically.. visionaries can be ‘polarizing…’ between open and closed thinkers…. RFK JR is shaking things up and deserves to be heard… so, again, BRAVO GWU and BRAVO PROF. TURLEY for understanding how important Free Speech really is……… to the progress of society and indeed of mankind……………..
One can be a visionary in the social sciences however, in real science and especially medicine, being a visionary requires objectivity and independently reproducible data. So far RFK,Jr. has not documented either in his jihad against vaccines, some medications and foods. His claim that “studies are being done” at his instigation to prove his claims fly in the face of objectivity and the scientific method. I do not say this as a leftist whacko. In fact, I am far from it. He certainly should be allowed to speak his opinions on campus and elsewhere however, the validity of his opinions must be supported by reproducibly verified, objective scientific facts in order to become national policy or as justification in tort claims.
. . . jihad against vaccines . . .
RFK is not anti-vaccine, but he does respect each person’s ability to choose what to put into their body. Thus, he is anti-mandatory vaccines. He has also told the truth about the dangers of the Covid vaccine, which makes him an enemy of Big Pharma which sponsors most of the news shows on the topic and has billions at stake.
So bottom line: he (a) believes in “my body my choice,” and (b) is skeptical of multi-billion dollar international corporations controlling the narrative.
In times past both (a) and (b) above were stalwart positions of the liberal-left. Today they are anathema to the liberal-left. Funny thing, that.
oldmanfromkansas,
RFK Jr. has the thought that every vaccine must go through testing on a population larger than the target population with absolutely no ill effects reported, even though many of those ill effects are simply things that would have happened anyway. It’s not clear how he would see approval for testing a vaccine on people that is not tested on people before allowing it to be tested on people.
He’s got no proof of any of his conjectures. He has this in common with flat Earthers and brings the same intellect.
What misinformation would RFK Jr. be spreading? Like eating healthy? Exercise is good for you? Ultra-processed food stuff is bad for you? Ahhh, yes! Have to stop that misinformation!
Good one.
look at the man’s physique. when a man his age, 71, looks that good, you know he is doing something right re: health and nutrition. I tell patients that as long as they have a heart rate and respiration, skeletal muscles respond to resistance weight training no matter their age. RFK Jr comes to mind
My ortho surgeon released me from rehab in August, and gave me his directive to hit the gym again but slowly add weights: 5 pounds per week. Initially it was super frustrating because I wanted to pick up where I had left off with weights. but I am following his orders. Family tells me my delts are looking like cantaloupes, my back has widened, my traps are popping and I am getting comments on my tris and bis all the time. Sweet!!!! Just don’t ask me to haul bails of hay on your farm
Get real, Dr. Estovir. I would bet money that RFK, Jr’s physique at his age is enhanced by supplemental prescription testosterone, in addition to exercise, eating healthy, and working out.
Money huh? Okay, I bet $10,000 that he’s all muscle w/o additives. More muscle than you have in your head.
In order to take my bet you need to prove beyond a doubt that he uses “those prescription” drugs you calim. We require the original prescriptions from the RFK’s MD.
Once you accept our terms, as a condition, you are required to post a full length photo of yourself, in underwear (don’t wanna scare the kids here) how often when and where we designate. Assuming you accept the terms, please send proof to my lawyer, we’ll contact RFK for confirmation of your claim.
Finally, if you are correct, the money can only be collected on a date we select, at a place we designate, in person with a valid US passport.
I don’t dislike RFK, Jr, but I am probably in agreement with Vincente. As someone who is the same age and who also exercises I don’t believe the rich guy got that body from diet and exercise.
“when a man his age, 71, looks that good, you know he is doing something right re: health and nutrition. ”
Under some circumstances it might be questionable how much of that is attributable to lifestyle, and how much to genetics. But we saw what Teddy looked like as he aged…
Upstatefarmer, misinformation like Tylenol causes autism. Weird claims like that. There’s a lot of misimformation he has spread over the years.
Mr. or Ms. X – it’s NOT ‘ misinformation that ‘Tylenol causes autism… it’s simply a different opinion based on a different set of evidence…. so the only thing that is ‘Weird’ here is YOUR claim that RFK JR ‘has spread..’ ‘misinformation’ ‘over the years….’
It is certainly misinformation when a public official makes claims without solid proof that Tylenol causes autism.
RFK Jr. is well known for promoting wild conspiracy theories and rumors about things he barely understands. His position of authority lends credibility to these outlandish claims, and unfortunately, some gullible and naive individuals may believe everything he says.
This is harmful to those who are unaware, as it leads them to accept falsehoods that are not supported by evidence.
The makers of Tylenol notified the public, umm… 2 years ago, via Twitter that pregnant women should not take Tylenol.
And I know RFK has more info on OTC drugs than you’ll ever be able to comprehend.
Lastly, it is harmful to those unaware… Really? Elaborate. Prove the falsehood first.
The statement from Tylenol’s manufacturers advising pregnant women not to take the medication does not constitute proof that Tylenol causes autism.
RFK Jr. does not possess any more information than what has been publicly available for years. You seem to believe that he has more credibility simply because of his position of authority, similar to how people view Fauci. However, being in a position of authority, according to them, does not automatically make someone credible.
RFK Jr. is making claims without any substantial evidence to support them. This is a pattern for him—he relies on conspiracy theories as the foundation of his assertions rather than concrete evidence.
clown.
Neither RFK nor Trump said Tylenol CAUSES autism. RFK cited published studies indicating a possible ASSOCIATION. Trump, taking this information, said Tylenol could be “very bad” and advised against pregnant women using Tylenol without consulting with their doctors. STOP SPREADING PROPAGANDA
yeah, I think he used the line that the studies showed a LINK between, NOT a CAUSATION.
It is certainly misinformation when a public official makes claims without solid proof that Tylenol causes autism.
George X… you ever hear of a public official named Dr. Fauci? How many times did he assure you (as well as actual Americans) that if you submitted to vaccination, you would be protected from being infected by Wuhan Flu? And “the science” said that six feet of physical separation would further protect you from transmission of Wuhan Flu?
Oh, and don’t forget: those non-sealing medical procedure masks were effective at screening out Wuhan Flu.
George X: while you were demanding everybody buy into Quack Fauci’s claims in his wealthy position as a public official, NOT ONCE did you complain there wasn’t a shred of solid proof to support his claims. Don’t use your primary school level reading comprehension as your excuse for not demanding solid proof for those claims
It’s the ol’ Big Democrat Double Standards Difference, right out there on public display yet again, brought to us yet again by our very own Fauci cultist, Big George X.
Tylenol is a brand name for a chemical that is sold under many names. In Europe it is called paracetamol. In the US it is acetaminophen. If RFK Jr. isn’t using the name of the chemical then he isn’t concerned about any connection to autism but is making a targeted attack on the maker of Tylenol.
Trump congratulated Xi for the way that China handled the outbreak.
Trump failed to close the borders when it was clear the Chinese were in full panic. The Chinese hide every embarrassment, yet it was clear they were building massive field hospitals, welding the doors shut on apartment buildings to prevent contact with those inside, and letting that information get released. If it was “no worse than the flu” as Trump told Americans shortly before asking if bleach injections would help, then you would never have heard of it in China.
Trump watched a fire burn across the globe towards America and decided that bad news would affect his chances of re-election and told everyone to do all the things that would make America a killing field.
Lady X, why hasn’t Tylenol sued him?
Don’t be surprised when you hear that the American Medical Association AMA and Pharma is funding the Protestors.
Holistic Living can Kill you, but Pharmaceutical Living can Kill you better.
Isn’t it well past time that we stop calling these colluding indoctrination facilities “higher education”?
I compliment the University for allowing both sides to be heard. You can take sides on what is said. I have been able to sit through some fairly awful speeches and so should these students. Who knows , they might learn something.
I would just like the powers that be on Universities to truthfully say to all their students that no one has all the answers. That it what I told my patients and students when I was privileged to teach them. So listen to what is said. I have never known anyone to get physically ill or suicidal from listening to a speech.
Tolerance is not popular right know but I still would like to see people pursue it.
“I have never known anyone to get physically ill or suicidal from listening to a speech.”
You must not have known Nancy Hopkins and Denice Denton, who did both, respectively, in reaction to a speech by Larry Summers.
Creekan-Can’t say I knew either one of those people. Were they hyperventilating before their illness. You can actually drop your pCo2 enough to prompt a syncopal episode and seizure. That I have seen but the news that particular individual (who had syncope) heard was worse than a speech.
RFK’s scientific knowledge base is borderline remedial, so I’m disputing his role as one of the most important figures in health today, Turls. He’s a political figure with an agenda.
Borderline, true. But he’s a politician not a scientist. I’ll take a politician over a scientist in that role. At least they know reality.
And that agenda is to MAHA. What’s wrong with that?
You lost me with “Turls”.
It’s his way of insulting the host. Just ignore it and consider the source.
He wont be quiet until he gets a hold of a vibrating 15″ butt plug that he hasnt tried already or a bag of crystal meth laced with talc. No wonder gays block him on Grindr
Butt plug, is that the same one that is usually in your mouth?
You get lost easily, so no big deal.
Well, it’s pretty clear that RFK,Jr either was asleep during, or skipped, law school immunology and pharmacology classes.
Clear? But just pretty clear, not absolutely clear.
This kind of free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee approach doesn’t work anymore. Utterly slayed by Trump’s second term. I’m surprised they’re still trying to use it.
Explain to me again why we spend billions subsidizing higher education?
It’s a private school.
“It’s a private school.”
It receives no Federal grants, aid, or tax benefits?
Private schools receive subsidies as well. The largest grant and subsidy receiver is Stanford which is a private institution.
Are those military or “security” grants? Congress may tax for and fund those.
Students created a petition asking the school to deny RFK Jr.’s appearance. This is an example of free speech. He was allowed to speak, and students voiced their objections. It is perfectly acceptable to label his views as misinformation, and in many cases, this is accurate.
As a private school, GWU allows students who oppose RFK Jr.’s presence to express their rights and demand action. The school took a neutral stance, permitting students who were opposed to the speech to protest and voice their concerns. There is nothing wrong with that.
Hundreds attended the speech, and hundreds signed the petition against his appearance. This is entirely within their rights. The key issue is how the school manages these circumstances.
What is particularly amusing is that Professor Turley’s recent articles have focused on small, distracting incidents while avoiding the more significant issues he typically covers. For instance, the prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James are not going well for the Trump administration. Their incompetent and chaotic attempts to indict and charge Trump’s political enemies are backfiring spectacularly, yet Turley conveniently ignores this situation. If it were the Biden administration, he would be covering it extensively. Perhaps the ongoing policy failures of the Trump administration are beginning to weigh heavily on Turley, leading him to overlook them more frequently. It is disappointing, as Professor Turley has usually been quick to hold administrations accountable for their corruption and abuse of power.
The point is that students signed a petition to prevent someone from speaking but of course you ignore that to make another of your contrarian and moronic comments. What a weirdo.
“moronic comments”… yours is the perfect example, as usual. What a weirdo.
Inga? Is that you? This is a sincere question.
Exhibit (A): Memo from hullbobby to: “Oh darn, “Anonymous the Child” is awake and replying to every comment in his usual juvenile, moronic and non-sensical manner. Ugh!”
Your honor, we the commenting public demand, yes demand, the death penalty for this his constant personal attacks on the good people on this blog.
Hullbobby, so? Students can sign petitions calling for whatever they want. It’s still their right. It’s called opposition. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Turley is complaining about the opposition and the calls to deny RFK Jr’s speech. It’s still perfectly constitutional to do that. What matters is whether the school chooses to side with the petitioners or the RFK jr sponsors. It remained neutral as every school should.
The point is that students are trying to ban a speaker. Why can’t you just admit that it is wrongheaded?
Hullbobby, how is that wrongheaded? Trying to ban it is still their prerogative. The can try and demand it all day long and it will still be constitutionally protected speech and activity.
There is nothing wrongheaded about their desire to express that view or want RFK jr’s presence denied. What would be wrongheaded is if the school took a position for one or the other. They wisely chose to remain neutral and let the opposing views be expressed. Signing a petition or saying RFK jr’s presence is not welcome and demanding the school do something about it is not unconstitutional. What matters is what the school does in response to either group.
Points of view can be manifestly wrong – this is what you are avoiding. Sure it is their right, but that doesn’t make it right. Attempting to prevent others from speaking – a Leftist trademark – is simply wrong.
And … don’t count your chickens just yet regards Comey and James. Note that Comey is a sociopath and a very self-righteous and corrupt person. James is a clown who clearly intentionally broke the law regards her mortgages.
goodbeavis, attempting to prevent others from speaking is perfectly legal and not prevented by the Constitution. Hecklers and people who shout down others are exercising their free speech rights as anyone else. You CAN be shouted down by hecklers and others. The distinction here is the school. If the school chose to support the hecklers then it would be wrong. Here we don’t have that. The school chose to remain neutral and allowed the students to air their demands and sign petitions. There is nothing wrong headed about it or inherently wrong about it.
“ Note that Comey is a sociopath and a very self-righteous and corrupt person. James is a clown who clearly intentionally broke the law regards her mortgages.”
Your conclusory statements are not evidence of any kind. Just a bad opinion.
James, provided evidence proving her innocence while the government has not been able to substantiate any of their claims. Comey has already pointed out that Halligan has likely lied in the indictment and shown she has not been legally appointed to her position.
Halligan is clearly incompetent. She’s an insurance lawyer with zero experience in prosecuting criminal cases like these. The only reason she took on the case when true professionals with decades of experience refused to. Because she just wants to please Trump and Trump picked her because she’s pretty. Not because she’s smart and/or qualified.
You deflect, or simply avoid the point. Nowhere did I say illegal or unconstitutional. I said wrong. Sure that is my opinion, but it’s pretty clear to me – attempting to prevent another’s right … is wrong. James’ documents clearly show lies – not sure how you think that can be explained away – it’s in black and white with her signatures on them. Comey? If you don’t think he is as described then I would would call you either uninformed or partisan.
goodbeavis, you never said it was illegal and Lady X will not answer why it is a good thing for students to try and ban a legitimate speaker.
What makes someone so weird that he will defend ANYTHING as long as it pits her against EVERYONE.
Hullbobby, it does not matter whether it’s a good or bad thing if students want to deny a speaker on campus. What matters is what the school does and to their credit, they chose to remain neutral. There is nothing weird about that.
“James’ documents clearly show lies – not sure how you think that can be explained away – it’s in black and white with her signatures on them. Comey?”
And your evidence to support that claims is?
James doesn’t have to prove anything. Halligan’s appointment was not legal in the first place. Her bumbling and haphazard attempt to rush the indictment showed she was willing to cut corners and make false statememts to the grand jury. That’s why true professionals did not sign on to help her. They already knew indicting Comey would not be possible because they did not have probable cause or evidence to back up the claim. He lied to Congress.
“. . . it does not matter whether it’s a good or bad thing . . .”
Behold the Left’s moral agnosticism.
So how do you get through life without a moral compass? You obey and follow others.
X says, “goodbeavis, attempting to prevent others from speaking is perfectly legal and not prevented by the Constitution. Hecklers and people who shout down others are exercising their free speech rights as anyone else.”
This is what happens when people like X try to tell others what the law is. Heckler’s vetoes are NOT protected speech. Good that he goes by “X,” makes it easier to X him out as an error-prone declarer of what the law is.
That’s not what a heckler’s veto is. Clearly, you don’t understand its definition.
A heckler can indeed shout down a speaker and prevent them from expressing their views. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that makes this behavior a crime or a violation of someone’s First Amendment rights.
A heckler’s veto refers to when the government restricts or shuts down speech due to the anticipated hostile reactions from opponents. In this case, it could involve school authorities, such as campus police.
“Yes, a heckler’s veto is generally considered unconstitutional in the United States because it allows the suppression of speech based on the anticipated negative reactions of others, which violates the First Amendment rights of the speaker. Courts have typically ruled that the government cannot restrict speech simply due to the potential for heckling or disruption, unless there is an immediate threat of violence.”
Middle Tennessee State University Freedom Forum
“The heckler’s veto is considered an unconstitutional, content-based restriction on speech. When police silence a speaker because of the audience’s reaction to the *content* of their message, they are violating this core principle. The legal basis for a lawsuit against the government for enforcing a heckler’s veto often comes from a federal statute known as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This law, often called a `section_1983_claim`, allows private citizens to sue government officials for depriving them of their constitutional rights under the “color of law.” https://uslawexplained.com/heckler_s_veto#google_vignette
“That’s not what a heckler’s veto is. ” Clearly, X doesn’t understand its definition.
When X receives an upvote, is it?
(a) a sign that the upvoter does not understand how wrong he is, and he has fooled them on the law;
(b) a vote from someone trying to downgrade Turley’s competence and popularity;
(c) he upvoted himself
(d) gigi joined him to retaliate against the rest of us
clearly, no one with even a basic understanding of the law, could not laugh.
You are correct that everyone has a right to express their hypocrisy. Personally I find it informative. Turley is simply pointing out their hypocrisy for using their First Amendment rights to attempt to thwart others from using their rights. He’s not arguing the protesters should be denied any right.
Tubwater, it’s not hypocrisy. It’s their right as everyone else’s. I’ve pointed out Professor Turley’s constant hypocrisy on free speech many times and as a hypocrite it’s still amusing how he cherry-picks his arguments to avoid it.
Mr. or Ms. X: ….what is ‘distressing’ and ‘disappointing’ is why ‘contributors’ like you are so hell-bent on injecting your TDS into everything… everything for you is based on a hatred of DT… give it up and we might take what you have to say more seriously..
eighteenhole, It’s called an opposing view.
No X, it is called a weird manifestation of contrarianism mixed with narcissism laced with partisanship and stupidity.
Hullbobby, nope. It’s just an opposing view. You don’t like the idea that there is one. Too bad. If you don’t like it just ignore it.
It is perfectly acceptable to label his views as misinformation, and in many cases, this is accurate.
I would post you couldn’t possibly be more stupid – but I know your response would be to say to yourself “Challenge accepted” and work diligently to dig down to subterranean levels of stupidly you haven’t reached yet.
After you spent the previous FOUR YEARS pimping for the DELIBERATE lies of Fraudulent Fauci, you have blown even your belief you have any claim to credibility when it comes to detecting when views are misinformation.
You are a pathetic Cheap Fake Marxist American, George X.
These intolerant students are fascists. They need to check themselves. Shame on them.
based on your comment., it seems to me you’re the intolerant one.
No, we don’t think so. Go look in the bathroom mirror. You’ll see the intolerant on!! What ARSE!!
Small minds trying to make other small minds even smaller.
HAs anyone ever asked Biden or his people why exactly they didn’t want the truth about the virus coming from the lab to be admitted? Why would an American administration fight so hard to defend another nation, that isn’t an ally or even friendly to us, from being accountable for the killing of millions? Could it have been because the CCP put pressure on Biden due to some sort of leverage they had on him? If not please tell us what else it could have been.
The master of verbiage… Small minds trying to make other small minds even smaller. Now how is that even possible. What is the process? Really, asking, how is that possible, what is the process?
To Wit: Exhibit (A)
Oh, you’re the retired constitutional lawyer on this blog I read. Your lawyer skills are amazing. Can I have your autograph?
I don’t think the answer is as nefarious as you think relative to Biden. All reporting I saw (which I think has been confirmed) said that the NIH funded the Communist Party research and that Fauci and Collins did not want that known
So were Fauci and Collins running the Biden WH? Was Fauci making national security decisions vis a vis foreign policy? Was Fauci making decisions regarding Twitter censorship? How much power did Fauci have?
Lots of questions, go find the answers, but take your time. Please.
“If not please tell us what else it could have been.”
I’ll offer another reason. Biden (and today’s Democrats) feel strong kinship, or affinity, with the Chinese Communist Regime. Actually, with any communist anywhere. They have a strong tendency to believe anything they say and to defend anything that they do. Of course, to make that a part of their public policy is not a good idea if they wish to win elections here in the USA (at least now), so they cover it up as best they can. But when push comes to shove, they are all comrades.
The Wuhan coverup commenced around January 27, 2020, before Biden even won the 2020 primary. It was orchestrated by Fauci, the one most implicated by Wuhan bat virus research. Then when Trump referred to the “China virus”, he was called racist as Nancy danced in Chinatown. Fauci emerged as the anti-Trump of 2020, celebrated with bobblehead. Biden was the real bobblehead reading from teleprompter.
Everyone is intolerant to some extent, but often with a well-reasoned thought process. What we see too much on campuses is intolerance based almost completely on emotion, at times accompanied with talking points. For example, if some students is demonstrating that illegals are being denied the constitutional rights by ICE, and you ask what rights are being denied, they might say, “Because Trump is evil.” This type of specious gibberish is now the norm on campuses. This is intolerable intolerance. Sadly, it is also the norm in Congress.
specious gibberish is the norm on this blog since your arrival.
“. . . they might say, ‘Because Trump is evil.’”
Then there’s this gem of an “argument” — where they merely repackage their conclusion:
“Why did you vote for Mamdani?”
“Because I like him.”
“It is to the credit of GWU that the school did not attempt to stop the event and ensured safety for all involved, from the speakers to the protesters.”
Thank you Professor. My opinion of my own alma mater went up a notch.
You went to GWU? No wonder your comments lack smarts.
Oh darn, “Anonymous the Child” is awake and replying to every comment in his usual juvenile, moronic and non-sensical manner. Ugh!
Oh oh, you got me again. man you must be a retired lawyer or sumptin. Mind like a steel trap. I surrender….
If you can’t win the argument on facts, ban the opposition from speaking. Modern liberalism
And conservatism too.